Re: AW: [cobalt-users] Nameserver RaQ4

["Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 5/5/01 06:23 PM -0700, you wrote:
> Perhaps I am missing something here.
> Why would any body want to set up two name servers on one
> machine, let alone in the same LAN?

You need to register *at least* two nameservers.

In the same LAN: you want redundancy if machine1 goes down, so ns1 and ns2 
are different machines.

In the same machine: you don't fully understand BIND's way of working (like 
99% of the world, so it doesn't make you a bad person), and you're trying 
to set up ns1 and ns2 on the same machine because you only *have* one 
machine. The best answer in this situation is to swap secondary DNS service 
with someone, but at the very least, the correct way to fake it is to run 
one instance of bind and have the machine answer to both the ns1 and ns2 
hostnames.

> I do not find where there has been any InterNic / ICAN suggestion where one
> should run a primary and a secondary name server on the same machine any
> where.  The way I understand it doing so would be contrary to the original
> intent and uses of registered internet name servers.

No, there has not been such a suggestion. Yes, it is contrary to the 
intent. No, it is not "best practice." But no, people are not being 
perverse... they're just trying to make the best of a situation where they 
are very short of resources and this is the answer they came up with.

I strongly recommend *never* depending on just one machine for DNS. If at 
all possible, *never* depend on one connection to the Internet... 
everything and everyone fails someday.

My conclusion: find someone else on this list your size who's got a 
different upstream and is on a different network, and do secondary DNS for 
each other.


--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx